Content deleted Content added
m |
|||
Line 111: ==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by [[User:Anonywiki|Anonywiki]]== {{atop|1=The appeal of the sanction has been '''declined''' by a clear and active consensus. A few additional points: *The section "notification of that administrator" has not been edited by the appellant to include a diff as it says it should, and indeed EdJohnston's talk page doesn't seem to have received a notification, but Ed did comment here so I do not think this small omission has flawed the outcome in any way *In reply to Anonywiki, you can find the log of the sanction here: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#Genetically modified organisms]]. It is also where this declined appeal will be logged. *In reply to BMK, I think that the wording of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#appeals.notes|the procedure]] indicates that the six month delay for a second appeal would start when the appeal was made (Nov-27th), not closed (Dec-5th), but it's a matter of days so it's probably relatively trivial. I hope an appeal in six months won't be hastily declined for a matter of days. <span style="font-size:10pt;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;"><big>☺</big> · [[User:Salvidrim!|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]] · [[User talk:Salvidrim|<span style="color:white">✉</span>]]</span> 17:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)}} <small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''</small> Line 117 ⟶ 120: ; Sanction being appealed : Topic ban from the subject of GMOs, imposed at
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|EdJohnston}} Line 139 ⟶ 142: ===Statement by [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]]===
===Statement by Neutrality=== I was the editor who originally filed the complaint against Anonywiki. His/her appeal should be denied for the reasons set forth by EdJohnston, and because Anonywiki presents no substantial reason to lift the topic ban. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 00:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by [[User:Anonywiki|Anonywiki]] === Line 155 ⟶ 156: ===Result of the appeal by [[User:Anonywiki|Anonywiki]]=== *There is clear and active consensus to '''decline''' the appeal. <span style="font-size:10pt;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;"><big>☺</big> · [[User:Salvidrim!|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]] · [[User talk:Salvidrim|<span style="color:white">✉</span>]]</span> 17:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Possibly compromised account == | |||